WTF?

And before someone says "Well, you need to be careful what you say on the internet." (I agree), that's not what this article says. I would have been more specific, but I ran out of room in the title line.

Rejected for merely FOLLOWING the "wrong" people.

Quote:While major Internet platforms are busy silencing Alex Jones of Infowars.com, prestigious colleges are rejecting applicants who connect on social media with him and others with opinions not considered mainstream. We are not talking about applicants who are retweeting alleged hate speech, alleged “Fake News”, or alleged hoaxes. We are talking about just following a Twitter feed of someone whose views are frowned upon by members of an admissions committee.

While one of my legal clients (a 17 year old teen) was being interviewed by one of the most competitive colleges in the country he was asked why he was following Alex Jones on Twitter. My client, a teenager expected to talk about his stellar grades, top test scores, amazing extracurricular activities and volunteer work, but the interviewer focused on who he was connecting with online. My client had never “liked” or re-tweeted any of Mr. Jones’ content. His alleged “transgression” was that he followed Mr. Jones on Twitter. That was it.

Subsequently, the student’s parents engaged me about this troubling situation. Immediately, I performed a digital background check on the admissions interviewer and found her to be a Bernie Sanders follower. Interestingly, Mr. Jones’ is not a big fan of Mr. Sanders. To each his own; however, political discrimination has no place during the college admissions process and I told the college’s admissions director that the situation must be properly resolved immediately. The college didn’t want any negative publicity about this matter so it quickly resolved the situation to my client’s satisfaction.

This example demonstrates why teens need to not just audit their digital profiles and lock down their social media accounts during the college application process, they must also ensure that their web surfing history is not collected by an admissions committee because innocent digital activity is being used to reject students from their dream colleges. A teen’s web search history may include topics such as politics, religion, health status, creed, etc. According to The New York Times, some colleges are trying to buy these data points from the organizations that provide the SAT or ACT who obtain this data directly from student test takers.

http://www.shearsocialmedia.com/2018/08/...itter.html

As a private entity, they shold be allowed to do this. Of course, they get no federal funds, grants, student loans, etc.

If a public university is doing this, its time to clear house.

(08-08-2018 12:47 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  As a private entity, they should be allowed to do this.

Should they, though? Isn't Harvard currently in hot water over discriminating against Asians? Racial discrimination isn't okay, but political discrimination is?

Even if they should be allowed (I disagree), it's that type of discrimination that is creating scenes like this, and college graduates that come out dumber and less prepared for the real world than they went in.

(08-08-2018 12:53 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-08-2018 12:47 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  As a private entity, they should be allowed to do this.

Should they, though? Isn't Harvard currently in hot water over discriminating against Asians? Racial discrimination isn't okay, but political discrimination is?

Even if they should be allowed (I disagree), it's that type of discrimination that is creating scenes like this, and college graduates that come out dumber and less prepared for the real world than they went in.

I'm going to be a Yale student for Halloween.

Straight out of Room 101.

The problem is worse than mere political discrimination. Its the type of intrusive invasion of privacy.

The good thing is that progressives don't hide their discrimination in public or private institutions. They think its ok.

(08-08-2018 04:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  The problem is worse than mere political discrimination. Its the type of intrusive invasion of privacy.

The good thing is that progressives don't hide their discrimination in public or private institutions. They think its ok.

One would think they'd want to bring these types into colleges and indoctrinate them into Marist-Leninist theory like themselves, not create a disaffected generation of class reactionaries they'll have to overcome during the Revolution.

(08-09-2018 08:28 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(08-08-2018 04:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  The problem is worse than mere political discrimination. Its the type of intrusive invasion of privacy.

The good thing is that progressives don't hide their discrimination in public or private institutions. They think its ok.

One would think they'd want to bring these types into colleges and indoctrinate them into Marist-Leninist theory like themselves, not create a disaffected generation of class reactionaries they'll have to overcome during the Revolution.

They are trying to economically isolate and impoverish conservatives.

(08-09-2018 08:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 08:28 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(08-08-2018 04:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  The problem is worse than mere political discrimination. Its the type of intrusive invasion of privacy.

The good thing is that progressives don't hide their discrimination in public or private institutions. They think its ok.

One would think they'd want to bring these types into colleges and indoctrinate them into Marist-Leninist theory like themselves, not create a disaffected generation of class reactionaries they'll have to overcome during the Revolution.

They are trying to economically isolate and impoverish conservatives.

Shortsighted in the extreme. People invested in the existing structure have the most to lose and are the least likely to oppose changes with force.

Public education is owned at the state level.

However, when states allow school districts or institutions to take federal funds they de facto hand control to the federal government.

Keep in mind federal funding is a small portion of school budgets. The funds are typically earmarked for certain programs and do not apply to the overall operations budget. However, by participating in those programs the state loses control.

Given that the constitution mentions nothing about education from a federal position, education is constitutionally a matter for the states.

Republicans in GOP-controlled states could shut this down if they wanted to. The problem is, they don't want to. They're OK with our educational institutions funded by OUR money feeding non-stop anti-US propaganda to every school age child, teen and adult.

You want to see a change in how society views harmful progressive policies? Stop brainwashing kids into thinking that's the correct alternative.

(08-09-2018 09:19 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Public education is owned at the state level.

However, when states allow school districts or institutions to take federal funds they de facto hand control to the federal government.

Keep in mind federal funding is a small portion of school budgets. The funds are typically earmarked for certain programs and do not apply to the overall operations budget. However, by participating in those programs the state loses control.

Given that the constitution mentions nothing about education from a federal position, education is constitutionally a matter for the states.

Republicans in GOP-controlled states could shut this down if they wanted to. The problem is, they don't want to. They're OK with our educational institutions funded by OUR money feeding non-stop anti-US propaganda to every school age child, teen and adult.

You want to see a change in how society views harmful progressive policies? Stop brainwashing kids into thinking that's the correct alternative.

(08-08-2018 12:40 PM)Kronke Wrote:  WTF?

And before someone says "Well, you need to be careful what you say on the internet." (I agree), that's not what this article says. I would have been more specific, but I ran out of room in the title line.

Rejected for merely FOLLOWING the "wrong" people.

Quote:While major Internet platforms are busy silencing Alex Jones of Infowars.com, prestigious colleges are rejecting applicants who connect on social media with him and others with opinions not considered mainstream. We are not talking about applicants who are retweeting alleged hate speech, alleged “Fake News”, or alleged hoaxes. We are talking about just following a Twitter feed of someone whose views are frowned upon by members of an admissions committee.

While one of my legal clients (a 17 year old teen) was being interviewed by one of the most competitive colleges in the country he was asked why he was following Alex Jones on Twitter. My client, a teenager expected to talk about his stellar grades, top test scores, amazing extracurricular activities and volunteer work, but the interviewer focused on who he was connecting with online. My client had never “liked” or re-tweeted any of Mr. Jones’ content. His alleged “transgression” was that he followed Mr. Jones on Twitter. That was it.

Subsequently, the student’s parents engaged me about this troubling situation. Immediately, I performed a digital background check on the admissions interviewer and found her to be a Bernie Sanders follower. Interestingly, Mr. Jones’ is not a big fan of Mr. Sanders. To each his own; however, political discrimination has no place during the college admissions process and I told the college’s admissions director that the situation must be properly resolved immediately. The college didn’t want any negative publicity about this matter so it quickly resolved the situation to my client’s satisfaction.

This example demonstrates why teens need to not just audit their digital profiles and lock down their social media accounts during the college application process, they must also ensure that their web surfing history is not collected by an admissions committee because innocent digital activity is being used to reject students from their dream colleges. A teen’s web search history may include topics such as politics, religion, health status, creed, etc. According to The New York Times, some colleges are trying to buy these data points from the organizations that provide the SAT or ACT who obtain this data directly from student test takers.

http://www.shearsocialmedia.com/2018/08/...itter.html

(08-09-2018 09:19 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Public education is owned at the state level.

However, when states allow school districts or institutions to take federal funds they de facto hand control to the federal government.

Keep in mind federal funding is a small portion of school budgets. The funds are typically earmarked for certain programs and do not apply to the overall operations budget. However, by participating in those programs the state loses control.

Given that the constitution mentions nothing about education from a federal position, education is constitutionally a matter for the states.

Republicans in GOP-controlled states could shut this down if they wanted to. The problem is, they don't want to. They're OK with our educational institutions funded by OUR money feeding non-stop anti-US propaganda to every school age child, teen and adult.

You want to see a change in how society views harmful progressive policies? Stop brainwashing kids into thinking that's the correct alternative.

This is the type of soft censorship that should frighten everyone.

Universities and university campuses USED to be a place where exchange of thoughts, beliefs, and ideas was not only accepted but ENCOURAGED.

They've now become so scared of people and ideas that don't conform to their philosophies that they're willing to do what amounts to digital book bans.

Guess when you KNOW your beliefs are garbage the only way to defend them is to stifle the opposition.

Joseph Goebbels is somewhere smiling......